I would like to take a moment to address something that you hear every Presidential cycle and which is making the rounds again in force this year – the threat that “if [Candidate X] wins the nomination, I am going to stay home/vote third party/vote for Obama.” The loudest and most vocal group of these folks during this election cycle are the Romney opponents; however, I’ve heard a lot of libertarian conservatives make the same threat about a potential Santorum nomination, and a lot of folks bothered by Newt’s serial adultery who have made the same threat if Newt gets the nomination. Let me start out by stating the obvious – there is no one who is going to force anyone to vote and each person is certainly entitled to make their own choice about whether they will take time out of their day once every other year to go to the voting booth and cast a ballot – a point which applies a fortiori when it comes to the decision whether to donate to/volunteer for a candidate. If a person simply feels that they can’t pull the lever for Romney/Santorum/Newt, then I respect that decision even if I disagree with it. After all, I myself would have been unable to pull the lever for Rudy in 2008 because I have moral qualms against voting for candidates who are in favor of legalized mass infanticide. The problem I have is with the folks who believe that their statement of refusal to vote for the Republican nominee presents some sort of existential threat to the Republican party that the party should heed and pay some sort of special deference to. The entire mentality that says, “If you, the Establishment, foist Mitt Romney upon us, then we are going to show you good – we are going to start a third party and destroy the Republican party forever!” A few points are in order about this line of thinking. First, the Republican party nomination will be won not by the “Establishment” but rather by Republican primary voters . If indeed Mitt Romney wins the nomination, it will be because more Republicans voted for him than for any other Republican candidate. In light of this undisputable fact, I am at a loss as to what the folks who are currently threatening third party votes/voting for Obama/staying home are hoping the Republican Party will do in the event that the Party is inclined to cave to their threats. Do they want the Republican Party to disregard the will of Republican voters and nominate someone who didn’t get as many votes as Mitt Romney? Such a solution is absurd on its face but that seems to be what many people are asking for (even though they aren’t taking their reasoning this far, which is its only logical endpoint). If you are really and truly angry about the prospect of a Mitt Romney nomination, may I suggest that you spend more time convincing your fellow voters to vote for someone else rather than screaming impotently at people who cannot fix your problem for you. And may I also suggest that “If your guy wins the nomination, I am taking my ball and going home” is not that persuasive of an argument to the average GOP primary voter. Second, this argument vastly overstates the importance of the person who is making it in the grand scheme of political history. Every potential nominee and actual nominee who has ever been nominated has been unacceptable to some subset of Republican voters. That fact notwithstanding, we’ve had a pretty decent run in terms of winning the White House since the end of the FDR administration. The polling right now would clearly suggest that Romney has the best chance to beat Obama head to head even given the allegedly enormous number of people who would sit out/vote Obama if he is the nominee (unless we assume that huge numbers of people are lying to pollsters about their willingness to vote for Romney in the general right now). The folks who are caterwauling right now ought to really stop and consider the implications of this fact. If, in fact, there is a nebulous Republican “Establishment” that is somehow able to control the primary process and override the will of Republican voters (something which I contend is ludicrous but is nonetheless fervently believed by many people, apparently), then the worst thing that could possibly happen to the conservative movement would be for them to get the idea – supported by the evidence – that Republican nominees could win without any support at all from movement conservatives. And if movement conservatives loudly sit out and/or vote Third Party and Romney wins anyway, that is exactly the message that will be sent. But moreover, there is a normative aspect of this that is at work here which I am dismayed to see so many alleged conservatives disregarding. Being elected to the Presidency in a country of this size requires a massive team organization effort that frankly cannot be accomplished outside of the current two-party framework. Despite the earnest protestations of various assorted cranks who have risen up throughout the years, a vote for something other than a Democrat or a Republican in the Presidential election is a completely wasted vote. The Democrats show no inclination to discontinue their parade of socialist freakshow nominees any time in the near future, so it is facially obvious that any person of even nominally conservative beliefs will generally find the Republicans’ nominee to be the better choice. The Republican party is composed of millions of different people with widely divergent beliefs and priorities. In different regions of the country and different Congressional districts, very different kinds of Republicans stand the best chance of being elected. When it comes to the country at large, we have a democratic process which determines who we as a party will put up for the position of President. This person will be the only meaningful alternative to the thinly veiled socialism of the Democrats that the public can choose. Sometimes, as a Republican, your choice for nominee will win, and sometimes your choice will lose. When the process is said and done, as a Republican, only a truly unusual set of circumstances should prevent us from being able to lay down the arms we have turned against each other and working together to defeat the Democrats and their twisted vision for America. Again, if someone can’t bring themselves to vote in November under their own conscience, that is their own business and I will not judge them. But the wailing cry of “I’m taking my ball and going home if I don’t get my way!” is something our parents hopefully taught us was wrong about the time we turned six years old. I see no reason why it should be treated with any more seriousness than we would treat a wayward six year old, even if it were possible to do so without thwarting the democratically-expressed wishes of the GOP electorate.
The rest is here:
Negotiating With Terrorists
The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest. — Nietzsche So it seems it will be Mitt. And good thing he won’t be offering his main rival the second spot on the ticket. “Mitt & Newt” sounds like the name of a comedy act or a network sitcom. Not right for something epic or tragic. Which is to say… not right for the times. Not even close. When you think about this election — and you must, there is no escaping it — you wonder if it is not just the same old, same old. Is this just another “most important election of our lifetimes,” or something, actually, a little more important than that? Is it business as usual or are we entering a pre-revolutionary phase of history when, soon, nothing will be the same again? Who knows? But to ask the question is to point out how unfit Mr. Romney may be to lead during these times. To begin with, he has never given any indication that he even understands, or appreciates, the mood of these days. You can listen to Mr. Romney debate or speak for hours (some have, poor souls) and never get the feeling that he senses the fear, the uncertainty, and the outright dread that is loose in the land. People, millions of them, are not merely frightened; they are terrified. Mr. Romney’s message of assurance? “I’ll fix things. Trust me, I’m a businessman.” An example of Mitts’s insouciance would be that line about how the health care mandate isn’t something to “get angry about.” Nah. Geeze, man. Chill. And on the existential (sorry, only word that will do) choices about just how much government the nation can afford and how much debt it can endure (or visa versa), Romney has never exhibited the slightest sign that he appreciates what a big deal it is. Nothing, he seems to believe, to get your knickers in a twist over. He’ll fix it. He’s a businessman. Mr. Romney has captured the Republican flag and will carry it into battle this Fall. If he loses, those people who believed devoutly that the times require something more than a standard-issue Republican for whom all things political are negotiable and to whom there is no dispute that cannot be settled by compromise … those people will be saying, “Never again.” They will have seen it before and one suspects they will be finished with a party that repeatedly sends out for slaughter candidates who do not represent their beliefs, positions, and ideas with conviction. If it is about common ground and compromise, they will say, then the hell with it and leave the Republican Party to people who consider it a boast to say, “I could work with Teddy Kennedy.” If, on the other hand, Mr. Romney wins, what then? Does anyone expect that when he gets to Washington and starts running the government like a business, entitlements will reform themselves, the deficit will shrivel on its own accord, and Leviathan will shrink to a size where it can be domesticated and housebroken? Has Mr. Romney demonstrated, ever, any convictions regarding the proper size and the rightful powers of the government? Does anyone believe he shares the fear millions feel about government power and their angry indignation at its arrogance and overreach? His overriding sentiment about government seems to be that it would be nice if he were in charge of it … so it would be run (all together now) like a business. In short, does anyone think that Romney will ride into Washington next January determined to tame the town… or die trying? Mr. Romney’s aim will almost surely be to take Washington on its own terms and try to “make it work.” Whatever anti-Washington sentiments he might express during the campaign, the odds are they will be discarded and forgotten within weeks of his taking the oath of office in a replay of George H. W. Bush and “read my lips.” The people who voted for Romney in the belief that he would take on Washington will be patronizingly told by the political class that “Governing is not the same as campaigning.” “No stuff, Sherlock,” the betrayed will say. “Governing is a lot more important and a lot tougher and the guys like Bush, Dole, McCain, the other Bush and, now, Romney never understood that. It is they who govern as though they were campaigning for the approval of Washington and the political class. “We never thought that electing them was the whole point and that if, afterwards, you got ‘Big Government Conservatism’ or ‘Compassionate Conservatism,’ it was no big deal because, praise Jesus, the Republicans were in charge. We always thought that the governing would be the hard part. Look how tough it was to get rid of ethanol subsidies. It is you who are confused.” The betrayed will leave if Romney makes it his mission to manage his way to a second term. He’ll have an easier path, this time, getting the nomination. But he will likely be the last Republican.
See original here:
The Last Republican?
Political analysts have a need to sound expertly and important when it comes to elections. They have to go in depth and explain artfully and deeply why someone won and someone lost. It was the debates. It was the ground game. It was the strategies. It was the likability versus dislikability of the candidates. On and on they go. What gets danced around is the money. Money is usually why candidates win or lose. Candidates with the highest favorable name ID usually win. To do that takes lots of money and lots of ads. For all the hoopla about Mitt Romney’s victory in Florida, it really is not that hard to understand. All you need to understand is the ratio 65 to 1. As my friend Jim Galloway notes at the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Mitt Romney ran 65 ads for every 1 ad run by or for Newt Gingrich. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum were shut out altogether. If you win the air war that significantly, you are going to win the election. We don’t need fancy spin and long winded explanations to understand that.
More:
Sixty-Five to One: It’s Not That Complicated
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Newt Gingrich tried to defend his claim that Mitt Romney is “the most anti-immigrant candidate” in last night’s Republican presidential debate here, an accusation that Romney called “inexcusable” and “repulsive.” Gingrich did not seem to understand that this accusation, made in a Spanish-language radio ad aimed at South Florida’s large Latino population, may actually end up helping Romney win next week’s primary. The controversy stirred by the ad, which Gingrich ordered his campaign to pull off the air, highlights differences of policy — and puts Gingrich clearly to Romney’s left, which isn’t a good place to be in a Republican primary. After a long discussion of the issue, CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Gingrich, “I just want to make sure I understand. Is [Romney] still the most anti-immigrant candidate?” The former House Speaker answered: “I think, of the four of us, yes.” This provoked a long response from Romney, who said he favors “enforcing the U.S. law to protect our borders,” a position that is not “anti-immigrant.” Romney accused Gingrich of “the kind of over-the-top rhetoric that has characterized American politics too long,” and then invoked the most popular Republican in Florida: “I’m glad that Marco Rubio called you out on it. I’m glad you withdrew it. I think you should apologize for it, and I think you should recognize that having differences of opinions on issues does not justify labeling people with highly charged epithets.” Thursday’s debate, the 19th televised debate among Republican presidential candidates this year, certainly did not lack fireworks. And while many political junkies have become weary of watching these affairs, the event here on the campus of the University of North Florida may be as decisive as the South Carolina debates that were credited with helping Gingrich score a crucial win there Saturday. Polls this week in Florida show Romney pulling away, and the former Massachusetts governor had one of his best-ever debate performances Thursday, while Gingrich had one of his worst yet. While arguments between the two Florida frontrunners got the biggest play, however, Thursday was also an impressive performance for former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Polls show Santorum running a distant third in the Sunshine State, but he slammed both Gingrich and Romney for their previous stances on health care. ” This is the top-down model that both of these gentlemen say they’re now against, but they’ve been for, and it does not provide the contrast we need with Barack Obama if we’re going to take on that most important issue,” Santorum said. “We cannot give the issue of health care away in this election. It is too foundational for us to win this election.” This provoked an extended argument between Santorum and Romney over the so-called “individual mandate” in the health legislation Romney supported in Massachusetts. When Santorum’s criticism of the Massachusetts plan grew heated, Romney replied by saying “it’s not worth getting angry about.” Asked after the debate about that flare-up, Santorum described himself as “passionate,” and his passionate performance won praise from many conservatives, including Guy Benson of Townhall.com : ” What a night for the former Pennsylvania Senator … he definitely made a very serious case that he might be the best Not Romney in the race. ” Santorum seems unlikely to score the kind of miraculous last-minute surge in the Sunshine State that carried him to victory in the Iowa caucuses three weeks ago, but Thursday’s debate could help him gain support as he seeks to rekindle his campaign’s sense of momentum. At this point, no candidate in the race has been able to win two consecutive contests. After Santorum edged Romney in Iowa, Romney came back to win convincingly in New Hampshire. But Gingrich won solidly in South Carolina, halting Romney’s momentum. If current Florida polls are accurate and Romney wins here Tuesday, the biggest challenge for Romney’s opponents will be to raise enough money to continue the fight through a long campaign.
Read this article:
Florida Fireworks Finale
Republicans need to chillax . Especially within the Republican establishment, some apparently are having anxiety attacks about how the primaries are unfolding. Here’s what the panic prone seem to be overlooking — if the election were held tomorrow, Charley Sheen would beat Barack Obama. Heck, you could even say John McCain would beat him. The point is this: the election in November will be almost exclusively about Obama. The relative importance of Obama versus fill-in-the-blank will be in the neighborhood of 95 to 5. This election will be overwhelmingly a vote against rather than a vote for. The deciding question on the majority of voters’ minds will be, “Which of these two guys is not Barack Obama.” There will be tens of millions of “one-issue voters” and the one issue will be Mr. Obama. In the 2008 election Obama had virtually every imaginable factor in his favor. The mainstream media gave him a free ride, as they will again in November. There was no due diligence, no vetting. Even with every imaginable advantage, 47 percent of the electorate voted against him. It’s reasonable to assume that virtually none of those who voted against him then will vote for him this time. Now consider the 53 percent who voted for him. That 53 percent comprised a number of sub-populations — young people, minorities, Jews, labor union members, progressives, independents, for example. Now on an almost daily basis we see polls showing how he is hemorrhaging support from one or another of these groups. In a wide variety of ways he has managed to alienate many of his supporters. There are, of course, Democrats and liberals who would never vote for any Republican. Nevertheless, some will simply opt not to vote at all. On the other hand, those who voted against Obama in 2008 are now more highly motivated to vote than they were then. Obama’s greatest asset in 2008 was his unknown-ness. That asset has now disappeared. In 2008 his blank résumé miraculously transformed into a blank canvas that voters used to envision their heartfelt fantasies. Obama is now a known quantity and a known quality. Getting elected by concealing who you are is not a strategy that can be recycled. The number of people he has angered or at least disappointed is immense. Even his supporters are angry at him. The difference between the hope and the results is huge. People who were mildly against him are now fervently so. The high unemployment rate only partially reflects the pain and anxiety in the population. Thousands of businesses have failed, and thousands of others are hanging on by their finger tips. Many of those people voted for him last time and will have a tough time doing so again. The Obama White House and reelection team are trying to show a brave face. The Republican primaries are their primary basis for optimism. They and their mainstream media support team think the Republicans are self-destructing, and many Republicans seem to agree. Fortunately for Republicans, in this election an ideal candidate is not a prerequisite for victory. As is always the case, everything is relative.
